Yup, just use --author And perhaps --signedoff (is it right?) to indicate who did the review if so desired
Cos On July 29, 2015 4:49:00 AM PDT, Andrey Gura <[email protected]> wrote: >Vladimir, > >why do you think that second approach allows to avoid typos in >contributor >names? > >Git commit has special field for author information. From my point of >view >this field is the best place for contributor name. > >Patch that was created with `git format-patch` command contains >information >about author. If you'll apply this patch using `git am` command then >all >commits in the patch will applied to the current branch and author >information will correctly assigned to the `author` field. > >It is possible that patch was created with `git diff` command. In this >case >you should use `git commit` command with `--author` parameter. > > >On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Vladimir Ozerov ><[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Igniters, >> >> Let's discuss how to mention contributor name when pushing >contributed >> patches. There are at least two ways of doing this: >> >> 1) Impersonate commit on behalf of real author. In this case commit >will >> appear in history as if it was performed by contributor: >> git commit --author="John Doe <[email protected]>" >> >> 2) Commit with your (committer) name mentioning author in >description: >> git commit -m "Cool feature. Thanks to John Doe for contribution." >> >> Please share your thoughts on which format is preferrable. I prefer >the >> second one. It is successfully used in other big projects such as >Hadoop >> and OpenJDK. With the first one GIT history will eventually be >flooded with >> misspelled contributor names ("John Doe", "Jonh Doe", "Jon Do", "John >> Whatever") >> >> Vladimir. >>
